A green square with black text

Description automatically generated

In early November, the leadership and board of Consortium News, the independent news site, filed a major lawsuit against the federal government and NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. NewGuard at first glance looks like a media watchdog organization, a group that seeks to keep misinformation and disinformation out of the mainstream. That notion is quickly dispelled, however, as soon as one takes a look under the hood. But first a little background:

Consortium News is one of the country’s most highly-respected independent news sources. It was founded in 1995 by journalist Robert Parry, who gained fame at the Associated Press, and later at Newsweek, for his role in uncovering the Iran-Contra affair and for breaking the story of C.I.A. involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking. Parry was a winner of the prestigious George Polk Award for National Reporting and of the I. F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence, bestowed by Harvard University’s Nieman Foundation. 

Its board of directors includes Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, foreign policy author Diana Johnstone, Black Agenda Report editor Margaret Kimberley, political consultant Garland Nixon, United Nations Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe communications director Nat Parry, documentary filmmaker John Pilger, award-winning investigative journalist Gareth Porter, producer and Academy Award nominee Julie Bergman Sender, 2012 Green Party presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein, and this author.

Robert Parry [Source: imdb.com] [Masthead Source: consortiumnews.com]

NewsGuard is a private company created and run by Steven Brill and L. Gordon Crovitz. Brill founded CourtTV, as well as a number of mainstream publications. He is also a former columnist at Newsweek and Reuters. Crovitz is a former editorial writer who later became publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the former vice president for planning at Dow Jones. These men have fine journalistic credentials. But that’s not where my complaint lies.

My complaint is that NewsGuard issues what it calls “trust ratings” for news. The company brags on its website that these ratings are “produced by humans, not AI.” (Artificial Intelligence) It offers something called “Misinformation Fingerprints” to tell you when you are consuming what the company has determined to be disinformation. 

They market this as a “journalistic solution to online misinformation,” and they claim “partnerships” with the Departments of State and Defense, Microsoft, Apple and other tech giants, although the nature of those partnerships is not clear.

We do know, however, that the Pentagon last year gave NewsGuard $750,000 for access to its “Disinformation Fingerprints” project, which it described in the contract as “a catalog of known hoaxes, lies, and disinformation stories spreading online.” 

Their team of human beings rates alternative media sites all over the world and gives them a score of 0-100. These scores are based on the following set of criteria: 

“Does not repeatedly publish false content (22 points); Gathers and presents information responsibly (18 points); Regularly corrects or clarifies errors (12.5 points); Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly (12.5 points); Avoids deceptive headlines (10 points); Discloses ownership and financing (7.5 points); Clearly labels advertising (7.5 points); Reveals who’s in charge, including possible conflicts of interest (5 points); Provides names of content creators and their contact or biographical information (5 points).” 

A score of 60 points or more gives a site a “green” label. But a score below 60 points gives the site a dreaded “red” label. 

So, who are these brilliant and unbiased human beings who get to decide if what we read is real news or disinformation?

One of them is Michael Hayden. (NewsGuard says its advisory board members don’t take an active role in rating news organizations.) The name should ring a bell. Hayden is a retired four-star general who was the director of the National Security Agency (NSA) on Sept. 11, 2001. He was the guy who immediately implemented a massive program of warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, all in the name of “national security.”

Hayden later became director of the C.I.A., where he oversaw the agency’s illegal, immoral and unethical torture, kidnapping, and secret prison programs. He’s also a former principal deputy director of National Intelligence, as if he hadn’t already done enough damage to the country. 

More recently, Hayden was a signatory on an open letter full of disinformation and outright lies that indicated that the Hunter Biden laptop was a “Russian intelligence operation.” That was laughable even before Hunter Biden stated publicly that the laptop was his. 

Another one of NewGuard’s “advisers” is former Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) Tom Ridge. It was Ridge who implemented the notorious Patriot Act in 2001 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which severely restricted Americans’ civil liberties. Those restrictions last to this day.

It was also Ridge who was the subject of a lawsuit in 2004 by Canadian national Maher Arar. Arar was a university professor in Toronto who had gone on vacation to Tunisia in 2002. On his way back to Toronto, while changing planes in New York, he was snatched by FBI agents at the request of the C.I.A., and with the cooperation of DHS agents, and sent to Syria, where he was tortured mercilessly for 10 months.

A person with a beard

Description automatically generated
Maher Arar [Source: cbc.ca]

The U.S. maintained that he had “connections” to Al-Qaeda, allegations that were never proven. The Syrians finally informed the U.S. that, despite the fact that Arar had been forced to sign a confession, he had no information about Al-Qaeda. He was simply the wrong guy. Arar was released and finally returned to Toronto. Nothing ever came of his suit against Tom Ridge.

Another of NewsGuard’s eminent advisers is Anders Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark and former secretary general of NATO. It was Rasmussen who sent Danish troops into Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. And as the leader of NATO, it was Rasmussen who oversaw NATO’s wars in Afghanistan and Libya. In 2014, this champion of transparency and opponent of disinformation told the Chatham House think tank,  “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”  Yes, he actually said this, with no evidence or proof whatsoever, that environmentalists oppose fracking only because the Russians have tricked them into it. 

Former NATO chief Rasmussen under investigation by Latvian police – POLITICO
Anders Rasmussen [Source: politico.eu]

Of course, as NewsGuard maintains, it’s (apparently) not these board members who oversee the ratings of alternative news sites. It’s what NewsGuard calls “journalism analysts.”

The journalism analyst who oversaw the Consortium News review was Zach Fishman. Fishman’s only previous employment in journalism was as a “physical and life sciences reporter at The Academic Times,” a now-defunct website, and later as a finance reporter at something called Fastinform. Fishman did not respond to a request for comment on this article.

Fishman, of course, is not the only journalism analyst at NewsGuard. ScheerPost, founded by the eminent former Los Angeles Times journalist Robert Scheer, an 11-time Pulitzer Prize nominee and now a professor of journalism at the University of Southern California, is also currently being scrutinized by NewsGuard. Scheer received a series of emails from “staff analyst” Valerie Pavilonis, in which she asked the same kinds of loaded questions, mostly about Ukraine and Syria, that NewsGuard analysts had asked of Consortium News, The Grayzone, antiwar.com, Mint Press, and other now-redlisted outlets.

The Enemy Is Us,' Says Robert Scheer - The Santa Barbara Independent
Robert Scheer [Source: independent.com]

The extent of Pavilonis’s journalistic experience was at her school paper in college. Like Fishman, Pavilonis did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

Poor analysis aside, NewsGuard may have gotten itself in over its head legally in 2021 in an arrogant move that has formed the basis of the Consortium News lawsuit.

In May 2021, Crovitz pitched the idea of an information watchdog to executives at Twitter. Reporting by Matt Taibbi and others on the so-called “Twitter Files” tells us that Crovitz’s written proposal included something heretofore unknown—besides the extension on the Microsoft Edge brower that allows for the “red” or “green” rating, Crovitz offered a “separate product for internal use by content moderation teams.” He promised a new tool that would use artificial intelligence powered by NewsGuard algorithms to quickly screen language the company associated with “dangerous content.”

The real question was how the company (or its algorithm) would determine what news was true and what was false. For starters, NewsGuard would send readers to official U.S. Government sources.

More cynically, Crovitz’s pitch noted that “Other content-moderation allies include intelligence and national security officials, reputation management providers, and government agencies” which contract with the firm to identify misinformation trends. Crovitz said that instead of only fact-checking individual pieces of information, NewsGuard could rate the “overall reliability” of a website and “prebunk” information there.

In the end, Twitter wasn’t interested in the service. But Crovitz and his partners forged ahead. Most importantly, it was NewsGuard’s admission in that pitch that led to the Consortium News lawsuit.

Consortium News argues in its court filing:

“In direct violation of the First Amendment, the United States of America and NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. are engaged in a pattern and practice of labeling, stigmatizing, and defaming American media organizations that oppose or dissent from American foreign and defense policy, particularly as to Russia and Ukraine.

This is accomplished by a contract between NewsGuard’s “Misinformation Fingerprints” program and the Department of Defense Cyber Command, an element of the Intelligence Community. Under this agreement, media organizations that challenge or dispute US foreign and defense policy as to Russia and Ukraine are reported to the government by NewsGuard and labeled as “anti-US,” purveyors of Russian “misinformation” and propaganda, publishing “false content” and failing to meet journalistic standards. NewsGuard’s contract with the government requires it “to find trustworthy sources,” a provision in violation of the First Amendment that does not permit the government to vet or clear news sources for their reliability, “trustworthiness” or orthodoxy.

Consortium News and other news organizations have been stigmatized and defamed under the Cyber Command contract. NewsGuard’s warning labels issued under the “Misinformation Fingerprints” program amount to a government-funded advisory as to official disfavored information, telling readers to “proceed with caution” when reading or viewing targeted news organization websites, including Consortium News.”

As if that’s not controversial—and wrong—enough, NewsGuard takes it upon itself to warn readers away from every article on a news website if they have a problem with a single article on the website.

Consortium News notes in its lawsuit that NewsGuard has redlisted the site after disagreeing with the conclusions of six articles out of tens of thousands published by Consortium News. And more cynically, although NewsGuard has existed since 2018, it did not contact, target, or label Consortium News until March 2022, after its contract with the U.S. Cyber Command came into effect.

And NewGuard has targeted only articles dealing with the 2014 coup in Ukraine, the influence of neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and “overtly genocidal” policies of the Ukrainian government, the same three topics that are the subject of NewsGuard’s “Misinformation Fingerprints” project under contract with the Cyber Command.

NewsGuard sells 'fact-checking' tools to Microsoft: report
[Source: nypost.com]

I will admit that when this story initially broke over a year ago, with NewsGuard challenging the reporting and independence of Consortium News, The Grayzone, and others, it felt like a David and Goliath scenario.

Was it even possible to stand up against an organization with the backing of the federal government and the mainstream news outlets. The answer is: It doesn’t matter. Sometimes the truth finds itself under attack. And when that happens, the truth fights back with what it has—the facts.

Consortium News made a decision early on to play NewsGuard’s game. Editor-in-chief Joe Lauria dutifully and honestly answered NewsGuard’s questions, only to be redlisted anyway.

The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal took a different tack. He told podcast host Jimmy Dore that he and Grayzone would wear their NewsGuard redlisting as a “badge of honor.” Blumenthal also wrote to NewsGuard:

Your board of advisors includes Anders Fogg Rasmussen, the former NATO Secretary General who presided over the regime change war that transformed Libya from a prosperous, stable nation into the hellish site of literal slave auctions and ISIS havens, describing the murderous mission as a “great success;” former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, who oversaw the growth of secret torture and mass surveillance programs in partnership with Dick Cheney; Richard Stengel, the self-proclaimed “chief propagandist” of the State Department; Arne Duncan, the privatization-hungry former Secretary of Education who proclaimed that Hurricane Katrina was “the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans” because it literally wiped out public schools; Tom Ridge, who as DHS secretary deployed cartoonish color-coded terror alerts (like NewsGuard’s media “nutritional labels”) to frighten the U.S. public into line with Bush’s catastrophic “war on terror;” and John Battelle, co-founder of the Wired magazine, which exists as a clearinghouse for the military-intelligence apparatus and was launched with seed money from Jeffrey Epstein beneficiary Nicholas Negroponte, the younger brother of former Director of National Intelligence and documented Central American death squad overseer John Negroponte.

NewsGuard’s listed partners represent some of the most notorious purveyors of state violence and imperialist propaganda on the planet. They include the U.S. Department of Defense, which has racked up a body county of tens of millions of civilians in the past century, carrying out or assisting genocidal wars of extermination from Korea to Yemen to Vietnam to Iraq, while systematically lying to the American public about its criminal fiasco in Afghanistan. You are also partnered with the Department of State, the main artery for launching regime change wars that have destabilized large swathes of the Middle East while imposing sadistic sanctions that have starved millions across the Global South. Newsguard’s partnerships are supplemented by imperialist cutouts like the German Marshall Fund, the U.S. government-sponsored lobby spreading disinformation to push censorship of anti-war media outlets like ours through its Alliance for Securing Democracy. Then there is the World Health Organization, a NewsGuard partner whose second largest funder is Bill Gates, the oligarchic Microsoft founder who is one of the four richest men in the world. Gates’ former tech company, Microsoft, is also a NewsGuard partner, marketing your ranking app to public schools across the country, even as Gates plows millions into destroying public education.

Antiwar.com’s editors have elected to simply ignore NewsGuard. Robert Scheer has done the same. After a lengthy and well-documented defense of the news that has appeared on The Scheer Post, much of which was written by Pultizer Prize-winning former New York Times Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges, Scheer elected to ignore the company.

I know many of these people. Washington is a small town. Having spent 15 years at the C.I.A. and another two-and-a-half on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff, I’ve gotten to know a lot of the players in government. 

I can tell you that they are as cynical and as dangerous as they seem. They are also the hypocrites they appear to be. Their thirst for power, and, once they have that, money, is exactly what you would expect of sociopaths who have climbed to the top of their fields on the backs of those around them.

Keep in mind that these “arbiters of truth” are the same men who have led us into false wars, who have gleefully violated even the most basic human rights and civil liberties, and who have made untold riches doing it. We must not trust them. 

After all, they think so little of us that they won’t respect the constitutional rights and freedoms that are not even theirs to take away. I, for one, will not take my orders from the likes of Deep State veterans, militarists, and credibly accused liars Mike Hayden, Tom Ridge, Anders Rasmussen or the former corporate journalists who employ them. 

In the meantime, we must all support Consortium News’s David versus the Pentagon’s and NewsGuard’s Goliath. It’s hard to trust in the system that we’ve given ourselves. But that’s what we have to do here. And in the meantime, I will remain a loyal and regular reader of the Scheer Post, Consortium News, antiwar.com, The Grayzone, and others who have the guts to give me the truthful and independent news I need. You should, too.

The views in this article are the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of CovertAction Magazine, Consortium News, The Scheer Post, or any other outlet.

CovertAction Magazine is made possible by subscriptionsorders and donations from readers like you.

Blow the Whistle on U.S. Imperialism

Click the whistle and donate

When you donate to CovertAction Magazine, you are supporting investigative journalism. Your contributions go directly to supporting the development, production, editing, and dissemination of the Magazine.

CovertAction Magazine does not receive corporate or government sponsorship. Yet, we hold a steadfast commitment to providing compensation for writers, editorial and technical support. Your support helps facilitate this compensation as well as increase the caliber of this work.

Please make a donation by clicking on the donate logo above and enter the amount and your credit or debit card information.

CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and your gift is tax-deductible for federal income purposes. CAI’s tax-exempt ID number is 87-2461683.

We sincerely thank you for your support.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI), including its Board of Directors (BD), Editorial Board (EB), Advisory Board (AB), staff, volunteers and its projects (including CovertAction Magazine) are not responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. This article also does not necessarily represent the views the BD, the EB, the AB, staff, volunteers, or any members of its projects.

Differing viewpoints: CAM publishes articles with differing viewpoints in an effort to nurture vibrant debate and thoughtful critical analysis. Feel free to comment on the articles in the comment section and/or send your letters to the Editors, which we will publish in the Letters column.

Copyrighted Material: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a not-for-profit charitable organization incorporated in the State of New York, we are making such material available in an effort to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.

Republishing: CovertAction Magazine (CAM) grants permission to cross-post CAM articles on not-for-profit community internet sites as long as the source is acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original CovertAction Magazine article. Also, kindly let us know at info@CovertActionMagazine.com. For publication of CAM articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: info@CovertActionMagazine.com.

By using this site, you agree to these terms above.

About the Author


  1. Although there is some friction between NewsGuard and Consortium, I noticed that NewsGuard also had some positive things to say about Consortium as follows 1) handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly 2) avoids deceptive headlines 3) website discloses ownership and financing 4) reveals who is in charge and any conflicts of interest 5) the site provides names of content creators, along with either contact or biographical information.

    NewsGuard also made some positive comments about Covert Action Magazine.

    • I have a very simple life and do not like to associate with groups or organizations. Usually I comment on sports making very brief comments. For example yesterday I made the following comment on a sports web site ” I think the goalie coach is doing an excellent job. Overall the goalies have exceeded expectations” The other commenters are respectful even if they may not agree with my comment.

  2. Anyone who really cares to see just how egregious the actions by NewsGuard are should take the time to read the complaint https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mmMTpNSN4PavJe6dv64HYuBuLY4T2iBn/view (this link can also be found within the ConsortiumNews article https://consortiumnews.com/2023/10/23/us-government-newsguard-sued-by-consortium-news/).

    One interesting aspect of NewsGuard’s whole operation is the fact that they determine the trustworthiness of a news organization based on a small set of biased nitpicks where their assertions of truth that repeat the US government narrative regarding those nitpicks are invalid in the first place, but most importantly this is done while ignoring the radical amount of provable lying in the mainstream press, thus giving the biggest liars a clean slate. In result, NewsGuard’s rankings are quite substantially the opposite of the truth.

  3. Rightly or wrongly we are all entitled to our opinions. I personally consider NewsGuard to be an excellent source of information and very trustworthy.

Leave a Reply